[ih] Karl's post from Friday: Re: Interop as part of Internet History

[Joseph Touch]

> On Sep 14, 2020, at 6:59 AM, Dave Crocker via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> My point is that The Independent Stream for RFC has actual editorial filtering. And editorial policy can vary quite a bit, depending on who the editor is.

How the ISE runs is under active discussion and revision, FWIW.

Currently, independent stream requires:
	- IETF and IAB confirmation of no-overlap with existing work
	- RSE editorial approval (which generally helps avoid publishing works that prove that 2+2 != — seriously)
	- IESG and IAB back-seat driving

That last part means that all independent stream docs include a disclaimer as follows:
   This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any other
   RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this document at
   its discretion and makes no statement about its value for
   implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for publication by
   the RFC Editor are not candidates for any level of Internet Standard;
   see Section 2 of RFC 7841.
However, although the RFC Editor publishes “at their discretion”, the IESG and IAB often intercede and demand changes or additional text.

Sometimes that intercession makes sense - e.g., to avoid implying a doc is related to IETF work. Other times, it’s just them back-seat driving.

So publish there if you want nearly 2 dozen “editors”...

Joe